HISTORY OF TABARI
VOLUME 1
General Introduction
Translator's Foreword
The Life and Works of al-Tabari
The History and Its English
Translation
The History in
Islam and the West
The preceding long list of Tabari's writings
contains very few titles devoted predominantly to historical or biographical
research, and a perusal of the biographical sketch presented here makes itquite
clear that the outward course of his life was comparatively little influenced
by his occupation with history. These are incontrovertible facts. Even the
availability of more bibliographical information than we have is unlikely to
refute them. Tabari's importance as a scholar in his time and his role as a
participant in contemporary affairs were the result of his scholarly activities
in the legal and religious sphere. Yet, the outstanding significance of History
was realized while he was still alive. It was welcomed by the students who
heard Tabari lecture on it or received his ijazah to study and transmit it. They
went on to use it in their own works, as was done, for instance, by the author
of Aghani (see above, n. 127). Its uniqueness was praised by a contemporary
such as Ibn al-Muqhallis (see above, p. 132). A writer on world history writing
in a rather different tradition, al-Mas'udi, was acquainted with Tabari as an
important historian. About a generation after Tabari's death, he spoke of
History as "a work superior to all other historical works because of the
abundant information it contains" and declared it "an extremely
useful work," for, he reasoned, Tabari's position as the leading jurist
and religious scholar of his time made it possible for him to know all there
was to know about history [455• See Mas'udi, Muruj, I,
i f., ed . Pellat, 1, 15; Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography2, 5o8. For
government experience as a necessity for the historian, see above, n. 453 . Al-Mas
'udi's relationship with Tabari is problematic. He once mentioned Tabari as his
oral authority (Mas'udi, Tanbih, 267). Thus, it would seem that he knew him
personally(?). See also Khalidi, Islamic Historiography, r48. Muruj (IV, 145,
ed. Pellat, II, 145) expressly refers to History and elsewhere mentions Tabari as
a source of historical information (Muruj, V, 8, 40, ed . Pellat, a, 184, 202).
None of the references can, however, be traced to History. Could al- Mas 'iadI
have quoted from memory what he had heard long ago in Tabari's lectures?].
Tabari became known primarily by his History.
It was, as M. J. de Goeje put it, the great work "whose fame has never
faded from his own day to ours [456. See de Goeje in
the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, XXIII, 3b (Edinburgh, 1888
). I owe this reference to Muth's work]. His biographers would, of course, not fail to
praise his other accomplishments, and they mention those in the field of
history as merely one aspect of his work and not the first and foremost [457. Irshad, VI, 423, ed. Rifii, XVIII, 40, introduces
Tabari as "a hadith scholar, jurist , Qur'an reader, and historian "
( in this order ). Dhahabi, 'Ibar, II, 146 , mentions Tafsir first, and then
Ta'rikh. On the other hand, Qifti, Muhammadan, 263 f., speaks of "the
author of the famous History and Tafsir." Of course, not much can be made
of this] but for Muslims, he was the historian of Islam. When it was
necessary to distinguish him from other Tabaris, it was as Tabari the
historian.
As was already suggested by O. Loth [458. See Loth, "Tabari 's Korancommentar," 590.
Loth says that ) in contrast to Tafsir), History had no competitors . This,
however, rather oversimplifies the situation], the explanation for this development
is not far to seek. Tabari's works on jurisprudence and hadith continued to be
admired, and his Qur' anic scholarship set an enduring and always respected
standard of excellence. Yet, works on law and religion always were at the
center of an enormous literary activity, and no matter how traditional much of
it was or seemed to be, new tendencies and concerns constantly left their
changing imprint on them. History, on the other hand, was, in accordance with
the basic character of Muslim historiography, never really superseded. It
remained the unique source for the period it covered, even when other sources
for it were still available. Later historians constantly used Tabari's work, at
first directly, but then, in the course of time, usually indirectly through
other histories such as the one of Ibn al-Athir. The new works offered much of
Tabari's information in a shortened form and, naturally, added much subsequent
history. Thus, they were easier to handle and had the advantage of being of
greater interest for the ma jority of readers who wanted to learn about events close to
their own times . Some, if not many, later historians continued to use Tabari
and even seek out earlier sources, but manuscripts became increasingly
difficult to find. Ibn Khaldun copied a document at first from Ibn al-Athir and
was only later able to collate the text as it appears in Tabari [459. See Ibn KhaldUn, Muqaddimah, 11, 139, n. 751] . This was more like the exception that confirmed
the general rule. Tabari always remained the historian of Islam, but his
original work receded from general view.
Early translations into Persian and Turkish
languages further attest to the fame of History. They show, however, a similar
tendency toward adaptations of the original text . According to our philological
understanding of the term, they could hardly be called translations . A Turkish
translation , incidentally, was published already in 1844 and served as a
source for some studies by contemporary Western scholars.
The history of the European acquaintance with
Tabari's History in a way constituted a reversal of the chronological process. The
Arabic and Muslim works which attracted the curiosity of early Orientalists
were generally those of more recent dates and, in particular, those of current
use in the Near East . The historians whose works were introduced in
seventeenth - century Europe , such as the histories of al-Makin and Abu al-
Fida', were acquainted with Tabari 's work as a rule only at second or third hand
[460. For Instance , L. Marracci knew History through
al -Makin. See Nallino, "Lefonti arabe ," 11, 96, n. i. Marracci did
not know Tafsir, of course.] . Only later did the search for the original
text start. It was a slow process, and it began in earnest only at the end of
the eighteenth century. After the publication of the Leiden edition in the last
quarter of the nineteenth century , the stage was reached where the later
excerptors and adapters of Tabari in Arabic as well as Persian and Turkish were
disregarded by modern historians, except, of course, for whatever information
not found in Tabari they were able to contribute.
The name of Tabari the historian had,
however, been long familiar in the West. B. d'Herbelot (1625-95), whose
Bibliotheque Orientale was published posthumously in 1697 , featured a
substantial article on "Thabari " ( Bibliotheque, 1014 ). He started
out by describing him as " the most famous of all Tabaris on account of
the general History from the creation of the world to the time in which he
lived that was published by him." The special article he devoted to
History (Bibliotheque, 866 f.) gives as good a summary of the work's history as
could be found in the West until more than a century had passed. It deserves to
be quoted here in full on account of its historical interest . Practically all
of its contents was derived by d'Herbelot from the great bibliographical work
of Hajji Khalifah (16o9-57), whose lifetime overlapped with his own [461. D ' Herbelot used Galland's manuscript of Hajji
Khalifah . See Laurens, Barthelemi d'Herbelot, 17. For his indirect use of
Tabari , see Laurens , 58. Hajji Khalifah 's lengthiest Tabari entry is in
connection with History; that on Tafsir is much briefer. See Hajji Khalifah,
ed. Yaltkaya, 297 f.].
TARIKH AiThabari. C'est le titre d'une
Histoire fort celebre, qui passe pour le fondement des autres Histoires
Musulmannes. Elle a ete composee par Abou Giafar Mohammed Ben Giorair, natif du
Thabarestan, qui mourut i'an 310. De l'hegire. Elle commence a la Creation du
Monde, & finit en Van 300 [462. Hajji Khalifah has
309 (for the latter date , see below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, xv)] de
1'hegire. Elle porte encore le titre particulier de,Tarikh alomam v almolouk.
Elie est aussi souvent citee sous le titre de Tarikh Giafari, & les Persans
la nomment aussi ,Tarikh pesser Giorair, l'Histoire du fils de Giorair.
Ebn AlGiouzi ecrit, que cette Histoire dans
son Original contient plusieurs volumes, & que l'Edition que nous avons entre
les mains n'en est qu 'un Abbrege, & Ebn AlSobki rapporte dans ses
Thabacat, que Thabari ayant demande a ses amis, s'ils prendroient plaisir a
lire une Histoire de tous ce qui etoit arrive dans le Monde jusqu'a son temps,
ils luy repondirent, qu'ils la liroient volontiers s'il etoit possible de la
trouver, & que cet Auteur leur ayant dit, qu'il avoit compile trente mille
feiiilles sur cette matiere, ses amis luy repliquerent, que tout le temps de
leur vie ne suffiroit pas pour les lire. Sur cecy, Thabari leur dit, qu'il
l'abbregeroit autant qu'il pourroit, & c'est cet Abbrege, dit Sobki, qui
nous est reste entre les mains.
Cet Abbrege a ete traduit en Langue Persienne
par Abou A'li Mohammed Allali [463. I, c., a misreading
of al-Bal'ami], Vizir des Sultans Samanides, duemps de Mansour Ben Nouh
, Pan 352 . de 1'hegire. Cette meme Histoire a ete traduite en Langue
Turquesque par un Auteur incertain , & c'est celle que l'on trouve communement
entre les mains des Turcs. Abou Mohammed A'bdallah Ben Mohammed AlFargani a fait
la continuation de l'Histoire de Thabari, & 1'a publiee sous le titre de
Selat.
Abou Hassan Mohammed Ben A ' bdalmalek
A1Hamadhani , mort l' an 521 . de l'hegire , y a fait un autre Supplement.
In the nineteenth - century West, "history
" was about to replace "philosophy " as the fundamental culture
symbol of the age. With it came a long period of the avid study of everything
that could be understood as "history ." The occupation with Tabari's
historical work gained in intensity, as is chronicled in F.-C . Muth' s very
useful survey of Tabari's History as mirrored in European scholarship published
in 1983 . Tabari ' s other works meanwhile continued to be all but unknown to
Western scholars . It was only near the end of the century that O. Loth called
attention to Tafsir , when a manuscript of the work had become known ( see
above , n. 383).
Not surprisingly, if quite inaccurately,
Tabari was describedshades of Herodotus !-as "Vater der arabischen
Geschichte" by A. D. Mordtmann , who in 1848, relying on the recently
published Turkish translation, collected History' s information on Tabaristan (
see Bibliography, below, under Mordtmann ). After the publication of the Leiden
edition, the interest of scholars soon turned to the challenging task of
disentangling the source situation in the original text of History. This was a
promising undertaking, owing to the fact that Tabari himself, in his way, was careful
to hint at the sources employed by him throughout his work. The name of J.
Wellhausen should be mentioned here as that of the highly regarded pioneer in this
field (see above, n. 2o6). The work has been continued with a good measure of
success, but much more remains to be done.
It was, and has remained , more difficult to
gain an insight into the manner in which Tabari used his sources . In other
words, what was his approach to the writing of history and his view of history in
general and the historical data he surveyed in his work? What considerations
determined his choice of a given source in preference to other sources that might
have been available to him? What, if anything, did he omit, thereby altering
trends and historical interpretation, be it consciously or unconsciously ?
Beyond a general Baghdad- centrism that was indicated by his own residence in
the capital and by the audience for which he was writing, what were his views
on historical events and personalities ? We hear, for example, that he
predicted the failure of Ibn al - Mu'tazz's revolt as soon as it happened .
When he was informed about it, he inquired about the new wazir and chief judge.
Hearing their names, he expressed the view that the choice of such accomplished
men who were ahead of their times in a period of general retrogression was
wrong and Ibn al-Mu'tazz would not last [464. The
report goes back to a1-Mu afa , with a suspiciously vague isnad connecting it
to Tabari . See Mu ' afa, falis, 1, 472, quoted in TB, X, 98 f. (above, n. 18).
The name of the chief judge is al-Masan b , al-Muthanna; he must be the same
individual as Abu al -Muthanna Ahmad b . Ya'qub, mentioned below, translation,
Vol. XXXVIII, 189.91 . It may be noted that Tabari figures among the
transmitters of the story of 'A'ishah that promotes the idea of a steady
deterioration in history; see Rosenthal , " Sweeter than Hope," 25.].
If this is the correct understanding of the reported remark , he seems to have meant
that the course of historical events depended upon prevailing trends and the
government must conform to the trends of the times in order to master them . Such
express statements are rare in Tabari 's case . They are also often, as in the
given example, of dubious historicity. The answers to the questions raised must
be sought by means of internal evidence.
The present translation has as one of its
purposes that of furthering this discussion . Whatever might come of it, the
fact remains that Tabari 's History is our greatest single source of
information for much of the early centuries of Muslim history. The existence of
a standard work of this kind is apt to exercise a certain restrictive influence
and to promote the tendency to rely on it unduly. Such was arguably the case
with Tabari's History for quite some time. It hardly is any longer. His History
is now ready to take its proper place in Muslim historiography-not at the head,
but at the very center.
The History and Its English
Translation
The Text
Scholars interested in the history of
libraries in Islam usually cite the Egyptian historians al-Musabbihi and Ibn
Abi Tayyi', who lived, respectively, around the turn of the fourth/tenth and sixth/twelfth
centuries. Brief remarks from the works of these historians illustrate the
large site of Muslim libraries in general as well as, in particular, the high esteem
in which Tabari's History was held. According to al-Musabbihi, the Fatimid
caliph al-'Aziz, who reigned from 975 to 996, spent one hundred dinars for a
copy of History that was offered to him. He then found out that his library
already contained more than twenty copies of the work, including one in
Tabari's own hand. According to Ibn Abi Tayyi', 1,220 copies of History were in
the library of the Fatimid palace complex when Saladin took over in 567/1171 [465. See Magrizi , Khllal,1, 408 f., cited, for instance ,
by Mez, Renaissance, 164f.; Pedersen, Arabic Book, 118 f. Al - Magrizi has 1 ,
2oo but the correct 1,220 is preserved in Abu Shamah, Rawdatayn, 1, 200, 1. 4,
ed. Cairo, t956,1, 507, 1. 7, and Ibn Kathir, Bidayah, XII, 266, year 5 67. See
Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography2, 5o. One may wonder whether 20 in 1 ,220 has
something to do with the figure of " more than twenty" in al-Musabbihi]
We are not told whether these were complete sets or individual volumes.
Whatever it was, the figure of 1,220 seems to be a somewhat exaggerated guess.
It is, however, quite possible that an autograph of Tabari found its way into
the possession of royal bibliophiles and that the Fatimid rulers, conscious of
their position in history, collected as many volumes as they could of a work
that reflected the past glory of Islam to which they themselves aspired in
vain. At a much later date, the Ottoman sultans had the same abundant means and
the same motivation for acquiring choice copies of History. It is thus not by
chance that today, the best of the preserved manuscripts are found in Istanbul
and complete sets can be reconstructed from the library holdings there. While Tabari
manuscripts are preserved in numerous European and Middle Eastern libraries, it
is usually only individual volumes and not the entire work.
For modern scholars trained in the proper
technique of text edition, it was natural to look especially to Istanbul for
manuscripts to be used in the planned edition of History. In the second half of
the nineteenth century, this was no simple task; but M. J. de Goeje and his
co-workers succeeded admirably in obtain ing the necessary manuscript material and preparing an
edition which presented an accurate text with a full critical apparatus and a
good deal of additional information. In addition to the chief mover of the
project, de Goeje (1836-1909), the honor roll of famous Orientalists of the
past century who participated in the enterprise included J. Barth (1851-1914),
S. Fraenkel (1855-1909, 1. Guidi (1844-1935(, S. Guyard (1846-84), M. Th.
Houtsma (1851-1943), P. De Jong (1832-1890), D. H. Muller (1846-1912), Th.
NoIdeke (1836-i930), E. Prym 11843-1913), V. Rosen (1849-19o8), and H.
Thorbecke (1837-901 [466. See Fuck, Arabische Studien,
in particular, 212 ff.]. The publisher was the great house of E. J.
Brill, which accomplished the difficult task of printing between the years 1879
and 19oi. All editorial material, such as the brief summaries of the contents
accompanying the individual volumes , the introduction, the glossary of
noteworthy terms, and the model index, was written in Latin, as was fitting at
the time for an inter-European enterprise. The full Latin title of the edition,
which chose Kitab Ta'rikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk for the Arabic title page (see
above, 131), was Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir
at-Tabari, which led scholars often to refer to it as Annales.
The Leiden edition had practically nothing in
the way of predecessors [467. See Muth, passim],
and it has as yet not been replaced. Manuscripts in the collections of the
Topkapisarayi in Istanbul were not accessible at the time . As far as our
present knowledge goes, they are the only significant manuscript material not
used in the Leiden edition, although the chance of making new discoveries
remains. It would seem that the oldest portion of a manuscript of History is a
number of folios bound into Ms. Kopriilii, I, 1047, covering the years 64-66 [468. The Istanbul manuscripts have been studied by R.
Stephen Humphreys, who presented a preliminary report on his findings at the
meeting of the American Oriental Society in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in April
1985..].
The Istanbul material was largely used by the
editor of the Cairo edition, Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, who had made himself
a respected name as the editor of many important texts. His edition began to
appear in 1969 and was reprinted repeatedly. Ibrahim omitted the critical
apparatus of the Leiden edition. He basically restricted himself to indicating
the variant readings of the Topkapisarayi manuscripts , with the exception of
Ms. Revankosk, no.15 5 5 (Karatay, Catalogue, no. 5735, see below, translation,
Vol. XXXVIII, xv f.). He also used some manuscript material from Egypt and
India. It seems that he mainly listed variants he considered significant. He
adopted the sound principle of showing the pagination of the standard Leiden edition
in the margin of his text and thereby established the proper manner of
reference for all who work on History. This procedure must be continued in any
future edition, including the new scientific edition which it is hoped will some
day be published and supersede the Leiden edition.
In connection with establishing the Arabic
text, there was no pressing need to consult the Persian and Turkish versions.
No case has as yet been made that these reworkings of the original could be of
any real help, except, perhaps, with respect to additions not appearing in the
available manuscripts. Even less useful are all the abridgments of the Arabic,
the retranslations of the Persian version into Arabic, and the like. However,
the difficult task of a bibliographical description of all this material
remains to be undertaken, even if the results promise to be meager, at least as
far as Tabari's original text is concerned.
A work such as History allows the
incorporation in the text of additions at certain stages of the manuscript
tradition. Such additions might have entered the text during Tabari's lifetime,
coming from his own hand or that of others who might or might not have acted
with his knowledge and approval. Later authors who used History show some such
additions or corrections to the accepted text. There is a strong likelihood
that they were not responsible for them but followed some manuscript authority.
The chronological arrangement, in particular, facilitated insertions.
Professional copyists would not normally have tampered with the text they
copied, but scholarly readers might have made marginal additions which
eventually entered the text. Usually, additions that came about in this manner
cannot be expected to have left an express indication of their origin in the
text; but History, II, 1368-72, contains what is specifically stated to be an addition in the biography of 'Umar b. 'Abd
al-'Aziz not from the work of Abu Ja'far, to the beginning of the caliphate of
Yazid b. 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan." The situation is less clear in History,
II, 835-43. The passage which raised doubts already in the mind of its editor
is poorly attested in the manuscript tradition. It is also not found in the
Topkapisarayi manuscript. It is thus difficult to accept it as a Tabarian
addition, although this is not entirely precluded; the passage may go back to
notations which Tabari had made for himself and which he had intended to insert
in the appropriate places. In all the minor instances of additions or
omissions, the decision as to whether they go back to Tabari must be made in each
case individually. Probably, very many can indeed be considered as somehow
connected to Tabari (see below, translation, Vol. XXXVIII, xvii ff.). Such small
problems remain to be solved, before a definitive text of History is in our
hands. Nothing of the sort, however, can be assumed to affect the understanding
of the historical contents as Tabari meant it to be understood.
Previous
Translations
Arabists are fond of recalling that the
various editors of History were supposed to provide translations of the volumes
edited by them, but only Theodor Noldeke took up the idea and published his
justly celebrated Geschichte der Perser and Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden ( E.
J. Brill, Leiden, 1879, reprinted Graz, 1973). His translation covered History,
I, 813-1067; he omitted some brief portions as having no immediate bearing upon
Persian history (I, 890,1.4-892,1. 113, 901,1.1-917,1.17, 966,1. 15- 981,1. 2 )
[469. When Noldeke was urged to prepare a second
edition of his Tabari translation, he spoke of it as " perhaps the best I
have ever done" (letter to Goldziher, dated September it, 19ro ; see
Robert Simon , /gndc Goldziher, 340). Tabari's much less detailed and scattered
treatment of ancient Iranian mythological history was translated by Christensen
( see below, translation , n. 151)].
It is regrettable that the other editors did not follow Noldeke' s
example. Their long and intimate occupation with the text uniquely qualified
them for the task. Their translations, had they been published, would have been
most helpful to subsequent translators and might have stimulated translations
into other languages. Above all, the existence of History in translation would
have constituted a strong incentive for historians who were not Near Eastern
specialists to make use of it in their work.
Under the direction of G. E. von Grunebaum,
Elma Marin translated Tabari's treatment of the caliphate of al-Mu'tasim from
History, II,1164-1329. Her work was published by the American Oriental Society
in New Haven in 1951 . Individual passages of some lines to a number of pages
in length have , of course, been translated in many publications, as was
dictated by their particular subject matter.
It can be assumed that quite a few Arabists
dreamed of preparing a complete translation, but their names went unrecorded,
or, at least, are unknown to this writer [470. See also
Muth, I. *As of December 1987 , nine volumes of the English translation have
been published]. J. A. Williams contemplated the task, and D. M. Dunlop
tried to organize a collaborative effort while being a professor at Columbia
University. A translation of the whole by one person has certain advantages. It
makes for much greater uniformity in approach and execution. As it demands a
total long-term immersion in the text , it holds the promise of yielding
unexpected insights. However, the chances of bringing such a major enterprise
to final fruition are small. Collaboration by a number of scholars offers a
better chance for success. Upon the initiative of Ehsan Yarshater of Columbia
University, such a collaborative effort was initiated in 1971. It proved
possible for Michael G. Morony, a participant in the project, to arrange for a
division of the entire text into portions of about two hundred pages each,
distributed over thirty-eight volumes. Thus, the chore of finding capable and willing
translators could begin. It was thought impractical to postpone publication
until all volumes were completed. The first three volumes (XXVII, XXXV, and XXXVIII)
appeared in 1985 under the aegis of the State University of New York Press,
which, like E. J. Brill before, had voluntarily declared itself ready to
undertake the difficult work of publication in the service of scholarship. The present
hope is that the entire task will be completed by 1995. As was the case with
the Leiden edition, financial support had to be found. Strenuous efforts on the
part of Ehsan Yarshater succeeded in surmounting this hurdle, but the search
for funds has to continue in order to keep the enterprise going.
Toward the end of achieving a desirable
degree of uniformity in presentation and format, some directions were deemed
necessary to be given to the translators . At the same time, it was realized that
the quality of the work might be enhanced if each translator relied primarily
on his own judgment and expertise . A generous allowance of space was set aside
for annotation , but again, it was left to the individual translator to make
the difficult choice of what required annotation and how much information the
footnotes should contain . General introductory remarks for each volume were suggested
in order to provide all the necessary observations to be made in connection
with a given volume, while keeping in mind the quite different character of the
various sections of History.
The system of transliteration employed in the
translation follows by and large a practice that has by now become standard in the
scholarly publications of Arabists and Islamicists . This writer wishes,
however, to express disagreement with the choice of -iyy-(-uww-J for - iy- (uw).
Under the influence of the Encyclopaedia of Islam , this transliteration is
widely used . It is plainly wrong, and not just a simple matter of convention.
For the rendering of names of localities, exact transliteration was recommended
as the norm , except for a very few place names that have accepted English
forms of long standing; thus al - Kufah ( with the retention of the definite
article ), but Mecca, and not Makkah . Doubts as to what constitutes an
accepted form are many . With the growing Western familiarity with Near Eastern
geography, these doubts have not diminished but rather have increased .
Accurate transliteration thus seemed preferable . The definite article in the
names of frequently mentioned and quoted authors has often been omitted,
especially in bibliographical references , and it is ( almost) always Tabari,
instead of al-Tabari.
A special concern has been how to best serve
those readers who might not know Arabic . In fact, it is hoped that specialists
will find the translation useful ; but a translation primarily addresses itself
to those not fully familiar with the original language. This regard for
non-Arabists has led , for instance, to the insistence upon an unambiguous
rendering of dates and upon providing chapter headings . It has also influenced
the choice of the secondary literature in the footnotes , with the
understanding that Arabic and Islamic studies have not yet progressed to the
state where the secondary literature is sufficiently developed to make possible
reliance on it exclusively . For Qur'an quotations, the translation of A. J.
Arberry was suggested with some hesitation, but again, it was left to the
individual translator to decide upon the most suitable renditions.
There was never any doubt as to which edition
should constitute the basis for the translation , as the Leiden text is the only
scientific edition in existence . Translators were, however, aware of the Cairo
edition and the need to consult it wherever it was thought to contain a
superior text . No priority was assigned to consulting manuscripts . Translators
who had the opportunity were encouraged to do so . The gain to be obtained from
the consultation of manuscripts did not loom large as a rule , but it is undeniable
that in any occupation with ancient texts , no matter how carefully edited ,
recourse to manuscripts is of value , if only for the purpose of ascertaining
that the available printed editions are indeed reliable.
The hope was expressed that the translations
should be accurate and faithful to the original and, at the same time,
idiomatic and fluent in English . This great ideal , if constantly invoked, is
rarely achieved anywhere . Editorial and stylistic help has been provided to
the extent possible . The translator 's individuality could never be entirely
suppressed nor, indeed , should it be.
The only liberty that the translators were
asked to take with the Arabic text affects the presentation of isnads , the
chains of transmitters that served Tabari as an indication of his sources. A literal
translation would typically run like this : " A told me that B told us : C
told us on the authority of D, on the authority of E that F said ...." A
less clumsy rendering was chosen to take its place, to wit: "According to
A - B - C - D - E - F ...." Occasional exceptions as required by the flow
of the narrative were permitted. The simplification is fully justified in view
of the less cluttered text page resulting from it and the amount of space
saved. It conceals , however, the numerous variations in the form of the isnads
indicated by Tabari . These variations are important for a more precise
understanding of the source situation . Scholars concerned with source problems
must have recourse to the Arabic text.
At this time , the halfway mark in the
project is not far off. When the entire work is completed , a retrospective on
its genesis and execution will improve and enlarge upon the present brief and
preliminary remarks.
CONTINUED
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar